Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Justice Oversight Hearings today | Main | Robber takes on martial artist »

Fast and Furious hearings get pretty fired up

Posted by David Hardy · 8 December 2011 04:29 PM

From the end of the hearing:

"ISSA: Yesterday, Mr. Attorney General, we became aware that e- mail between Lanny Breuer and the deputy -- his deputy, Jason Weinstein, about Fast and Furious in March time frame, that they exist. Some of these -- actually all of these have been withheld from the committee. Will you agree to turn over those communications in the March time frame between Lenny Breuer and his deputy, Jason Weinstein?

HOLDER: March of what year?

ISSA: 2011.

HOLDER: As I have indicated, we are not going to be turning over materials after February.

ISSA: Are you aware that you are in fact, by doing so, in the fact that we already issued from the Oversight Committee a subpoena, you are standing in contempt of Congress unless you have a valid reason, that you express it, that you provide logs, which you've refused to provide for the -- the other information? Otherwise you will leave the committee no choice but to seek contempt for your failure to deliver or to cite a constitutional exemption.

SMITH: The gentleman's time has expired. The attorney general will be allowed to respond.

HOLDER: We will respond in a way that is consistent with the way in which the Justice Department has always responded to those kinds of requests.

ISSA: That's not the question, Mr. Attorney General.

(UNKNOWN): Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

SMITH: Please proceed, Mr. Attorney General.

HOLDER: We'll respond in a way that other attorneys general have, other Justice...

ISSA: John Mitchell responded that way, too, Mr. Attorney General.
. . . . . .

HOLDER: Ms. Adams asked me about -- Congresswoman Adams asked me about political points. The reference to John Mitchell, let's think about that. Think about that. At some point, as they said in the -- it was the McCarthy hearing, at some point have you no shame, you know?

In any case, I will say that with regard to that, we have made our point clear how we will respond.

· BATFE

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim D. | December 8, 2011 5:53 PM | Reply

So it is a Cover Up.

And I never understood why it was "shameful" to go after Communists in the first place.

If Holder wants to end in the history books on the same page as John Mitchell, all he has to do is follow the same script.

DirtCrashr | December 8, 2011 6:26 PM | Reply

Did I get that right? Holder's conflating himself with Nixon's Watergate Atty. Gen. John Mitchell - who served 19 months in Federal prison in connection with Watergate crimes - and simultaneously comparing his "plight" with the The Army-McCarthy Hearings Hearings???
These ignorant bozos are historically illiterate.

LGM30G | December 9, 2011 6:59 AM | Reply

If you're going to make a rhetorical appeal to the McCarthy hearings, you should make an articulate appeal. Stumbling over your words and ending with "...you know?" makes you look small and cheap. In this case, I fear that is accurate.

ParatrooperJJ | December 9, 2011 12:29 PM | Reply

And as Soviet cables have proved, McCarthy was right......

Jim | December 9, 2011 11:44 PM | Reply

Right, the liberal smear campaign against McCarthy had the impact of preventing spies from being rooted out, thus damaging our national security.

Leave a comment